When the first women were priested in Bristol Cathedral in 1994, there had already been female priests in other countries for some time. But although those women – in New Zealand and Canada and the States and elsewhere – were an enormous inspiration to those of us in the first generation of English female priests, we weren’t just following a bright idea from somewhere else in the world. The argument for women’s equality in Church and in society at large had been going on throughout the 20th century in this country. Maud Royden, a campaigner for women’s suffrage, was among those who founded The Church League for Women’s Suffrage (CLWS) in 1909, and in 1913 turned her interest specifically to women in Anglican orders, although she accurately predicted that getting the vote for women would be a picnic compared to seeing them in Hoy Orders. The campaign for suffrage was put to one side during the Great War but revived soon afterwards, and 1929 saw the first General Election in which women voted on equal terms with men in England. 1929 was also the year in which women became “persons” in their own right, by order of the Privy Council. And that same year, the Society for the Ministry of Women was founded, Maud Royden being a leading member.

Maud was an outstanding writer and speaker, and one of her observations was that it was a distinguishing feature of Christianity among the world religions to ignore the differences between men and women. It was at the heart of Christ’s teaching, she said, to treat people first as human beings and only secondly to pay attention to their gender. Maud Royden was right: this is one of Christ’s most extraordinary, radical and liberating teachings, but alas the world at large has proved slow to accept this, often seeing it as a threat, not a potential freedom.

This morning, 17 years on, I opened my calendar at March 12th and realised that the anniversary has fallen in the same week that saw the exit of a small group of Anglicans who have decided to join the Ordinariate – and the primary issue over which this shift in Church allegiance has occurred is the presence of women in Holy Orders, and the perceived “threat” to traditionalists of them becoming Bishops.

Some simply dismiss those who are against women’s ordination as misogynists. Personally I think that’s too simplistic: the human frame is far more complex than merely falling into love or hate. There are some misogynists in the Church, for sure – I’ve been spat on in Vestries before now. But for most it’s far more complicated than that; some genuinely feel that it’s essential to the integrity of the Church to demarcate the differences between men and women, and to reserve some areas of authority only for men. Others say that the decision to leave was, in the end, motivated by the sense that they no longer wanted to live inside a church that is marked more by politics than spirituality (although again that’s complicated – it’s a feeling I can sympathise with completely, having been on the receiving end of unpleasant church politics for most of my life precisely because I am a woman who was born with gifts that fit comfortably into ministry).

It is, I suppose, just a coincidence of the moveable feast of Easter that the exit to the ordinariate and the anniversary of the first ordinations fell within the same week. For those who left, I wish them well, and hope they are happy in their new home. And I hope for everyone’s sake that the political infighting will now recede.  But it still seems sad to me that two millennia after Jesus spoke such extraordinary words of inclusion into a society that treated women as mere property, it’s still apparently impossible for women in the Church to be treated as fully equal human beings. So much so that there are those who have to leave the Church because they cannot worship side by side with women who dare to lay claim to their God-given equality.

You can read more here about Maud Royden, Constance Coltman, Isabella Gilmore (whose legacy included a scholarship that helped to fund my own studies at Cambridge) and other leading figures in the early movement for the ordination of women.

“That this House welcomes the current moves by the General Synod of the Church of England to pass legislation permitting women to be bishops; notes that the Synod is currently engaged in consulting the Dioceses on the Women in the Episcopate: draft bishops and priests (consecration and ordination of women) Measure; further notes that General Synod expects to debate the final approval stage of the Measure in July 2012; encourages the House of Bishops to commend the Measure as currently drafted; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to remove any exemptions pertaining to gender under existing equality legislation, in the event that the Measure has overwhelming support in the dioceses but fails through a technicality to receive final approval in General Synod.”

It sounds to me like the sort of motion that will bring the discussion into the public arena again but probably won’t end up in law. I wonder whether he would also like to tackle free churches, new frontiers, catholics or anyone else that keeps women as second class citizens? But I guess not: establishment is the issue here, together with the fact that Bishops sit in the Lords. It’s hard to predict whether this will help or hinder the process within the Church itself, but maybe keeping public opinion visible will be a good thing? It is certainly one of the most glaring weaknesses of the Church of England that a medieval attitude towards women still is allowed house room.

There’s been plenty of comment on this. Among it – and much of it was helpful – there was also quite a bit of hot air, and the over-use of the word misogyny. And Nick Baines wondered out loud whether, when discord occurs over issues like this, there were any useful parallels to be made with narcissitic personality disorder. I think it’s not a helpful comparison, because while there are certainly a few misogynists among the opponents of women in the church, there are many, many more who simply cannot imagine how it will be a good thing, cannot square it with their existing understanding of church, and feel that it’s a matter of conscience to object. Some, no doubt, are reacting out of fear that the order of the world as they know it is about to be turned upside down, while others simply have a world view they are convinced is right, and don’t know what to do if the Church doesn’t agree. These are problems that need careful consideration, and they will no doubt be expressed with heartfelt emotion, but they are not indicators that people basically hate women, or that they have anything like a personality disorder.

Jonathan Wynne-Jones called Saturday the Church’s “Darkest Hour” and quotes Fr Jonathan Baker, principle of Pusey House and a leading traditionalist, as saying that young Anglo-Catholic priests will struggle to see a future in the Church of England.

“It is bound to be more difficult to hold on to people now,” he said. “How can you stay in a family where members of the family have no need of you.”

This, of course, is precisely what women have also been saying for quite a long time. The “I will have to leave the church if a or b happens or doesn’t happen…” argument is a matter of conscience for all of us, but it’s not the basis for a decision. It’s impossible to create a way forward that meets everyone’s requirements; that’s precisely what the disagreement is about. As Bishop Alan Wilson puts it:

Howbeit, one doughty layman of a traditionally Conservative outlook suggested to me at a recent do, you can’t really have a situation where the blacks are allowed on the bus but only because there’s a whites only section at the front where, as long as the passengers don’t look round, they can feel as though nothing’s changed. It’s for everyone to decide what their consciences will and won’t wear, but we each and all have more or less tuned consciences, and therein lies the complexity. He thinks they all need a bit of moral courage, now. Further paralysis and funk is the worst option of all, surely, for everyone. Time for a bit of faith.

Andrew Brown, who has been watching this debate unfold for a quarter of a century, and gave a far more upbeat account of events than Wynne-Jones. So much so that the headliner called it a “triumph”. It was certainly a significant moment in the history of the Church. But interestingly most of the women I know were not feeling “triumphant” on Saturday evening – perhaps because the debate is still far from over, but more because it wasn’t a war, and women, of all people, understand exactly how bad it feels to be “left out”. There was, I think, a surprisingly high level of grace despite a difficult discussion, and I hope today continues that way.

The sanest comments so far have also been the kindest. Here are two more:
from Jeremy Fletcher wrote that the decision must be one that doesn’t diminish the episcopal standing of a woman diocesan:

…I could not see that the Arcbishop’s amendment helped with this problem, and neither could the Steering Committee, who have lived with this for two years. I listened carefully, very carefully. And I voted not to kick a group of people out of the church, but to invite our church to operate with grace, rather than wielding writs at each other.

I believe that the Measure will enable exactly the kind of provision for those whose consciences cannot take a woman bishop to exist within the church. But that provision will need to be by grace rather than law. So offered, I think it will be a better church that results. But I do not doubt the despair of those who made the result such a telling event. And I pray that, before the debate resumes on Monday, grace may abound.

And the Rev’d Lesley Fellows published a personal response in the form of a moving account of presiding over Communion on sunday morning.

It’s going to need the wisdom of Gamaliel to keep looking forward to the future now. But I still believe it can be done, if grace is allowed to lead.

That’s all from me for now. Enjoy Monday.

here’s a snip:

“…The smoke and mirror strategy of giving jurisdiction by virtue of the Measure, rather than transfer or delegation in effect implies that the Church of England as a whole is ambiguous about the identity and authority of both Bishops who are female and male priests who accept their ministry. This is a dangerous precedent to set and leaves women in ministry vulnerable as they, along with every Christian, continue the battle against the principalities and powers of darkness but without the full support of the Church that recognised and authorised their divine calling to ordained ministry. It is a poor consolation prize to offer consecrated women fuller legal rights with one hand (para 15.1) while continuing to set up structures that call into question their spiritual authority (paragraph 13)…

Many people on both sides of the debate have struggled with the Act of Synod because they are committed to making it work and will continue to wrestle with whatever General Synod manages to agree upon, because of their love for the communities this Church serves, often despite the toxic legacy of the Act. This is illustrated by the fact that Prayer Vigils will take place around the country, in Ripon, Guildford, Newcastle and Lichfield Cathedrals, during the General Synod debates, genuinely drawing together the diversity of voices to which you refer, but to whom you clearly have not listened…

When will the Church of England accept that to set up structures that implicitly infer that some people are less a child of God than others is just poor theology and a stumbling block to our proclamation of the gospel?…

‘In Christ, old identities are never the last word and the good is offered for all the world,’ their publication reads, ‘So there should be nothing embarrassed or awkward about the Church’s commitment to draw others to Christ. This we do, not in order to win favour for ourselves, not to make others more like us, but simply because we want to share God’s gifts as we have received them – freely and unearned.’

Jerome Taylor in the Independent reports that

[The archbishops] said they recognised that conversions are a contentious subject which often had a “shadow side” that “led to actions in Christ’s name which have been inconsistent with Christ’s own teachings”. But they also called on fellow believers to be “up front” about the fact that Christians are expected to spread their faith to non-believers.

“In a society fixated on personal choice it is sometimes, paradoxically, frowned upon to promote one’s own choices as good for others,” the two bishops wrote. “But the fear of getting it wrong should never obscure the Christian’s commitment to the good of all and to making Christ the centrepiece of that good.”

These comments should, I imagine, be taken in the context of the ABC’s stated view that evangelism must not be of the bullying kind – or indeed of the kind that views people of other faiths as inevitably outside the salvation of God. Back in March, the ABC was reported as condeming the kind of proseletysation that proceeds from the assumption that other faiths have nothing to offer. The Archbishop’s speech, titled “The Finality of Christ in a Pluralist World”, was given in March at Guildford Cathedral, and addressed the difficulties modern Christians have with Biblical texts which suggest that Christianity is the only path to salvation. was an attempt to reconcile the claims of the Bible about Jesus and Christianity with the multi-faith societies in which Christians around the world must live. He noted that the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament urge believers to spread the “good news” or evangelise, but he was keen to emphasise that the need for good relations with other faiths in the secular world militates against proselytism.

Me? I’ve never been attracted to the bullying variety of evangelism, but neither have I ever been embarrassed to talk about the claims of Christianity, or to invite other people to check it out for themselves. I am not much of an evangelist by nature, if by that you mean someone who bangs on about Christianity in the belief that I have got all the answers. My sense of wonder, my intellectual curiosity and my genuine appreciation for the human race disallows me from wanting to think I already have all the answers: how appallingly boring that would be. But Christian theology, per se, is interesting and wide ranging if you take it seriously, and don’t allow yourself to be taken in by those who insist it has no intellectual credulity.

The more pressing problem for evangelism, it seems to me, is the ongoing debacle about women in the Church, this week of all weeks. Yesterday we learned that the Archbishops seem OK with proposing a compromise on women bishops that downgrades the status of all the women in the Church. It beats me how you can put that together with an upbeat view of evangelism. They might feel fine about evangelising people into a Church that continues to give women second class status. I do not. You don’t have to go back that many decades to find a church that disallowed people from becoming priests or bishops because of the colour of their skin, or because they had a disability. Those barriers have been broken down in the name of justice, and rightly so; no-one would dare uphold such an idea now, and even if they thought it privately they wouldn’t dare to say it out loud. It seems outrageous to me that we continue to believe that it’s OK to delay indefinitely the active acceptance of women at all levels in the Church. Its patently obvious that the world at large thinks so too, and this unacceptable injustice towards women is far more of a blight on evangelism than shyness.

AMENDMENTS TO BE PROPOSED BY THE ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY AND YORK

1.

We owe a great debt of gratitude to the Revision Committee for their dedicated and painstaking work. We wish, however – after much consideration, and after discussion in the House of Bishops – to offer legislative amendments to the Draft Measure which we believe might provide a way forward for the Church of England….

…The amendments we intend to propose involve neither delegation nor depriving a diocesan of any part of his or her jurisdiction. Instead we seek to give effect to the idea of a ‘co-ordinate’ jurisdiction….

It’s a carefully worded compromise. Read the rest here…

Damian Thompson of the Telegraph puts it bluntly, saying that the Archbishops are trying to twist the arm of Synod, although he also hopes they will succeed.

Meantime, Jonathan Petrie predicts a bloodbath (this is the Daily Mail, so dial it down a bit as you read):

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are to make a dramatic intervention in the long-running row over women bishops this week by demanding that opponents  of female clergy are not driven out of the Church. Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu are so concerned thousands of traditionalist churchgoers will quit when women become bishops that they are to risk the wrath of liberals by calling for major reforms in Church legislation. Sources said their statement will spell out a legal formula that will give traditionalist clergy and parishes the right to reject the authority of a woman bishop.

The intervention comes before a critical, 15-hour debate at the General Synod in York next month, which insiders are predicting could become a ‘bloodbath’.

Traditionalists, who do not accept that women can be priests or bishops, have been calling for the creation of a ‘his and hers’ Church, in which they cannot be forced to serve under a woman bishop. Liberals say, however, this would unacceptably diminish the status of women bishops because there would be parts of the Church over which they would have no sway.

So far the Synod has only agreed to give traditionalists minimal protection in the form of a code of conduct. The Archbishops want the Church legislation radically amended so that opponents are fully protected in law. They are, however, running the risk that the liberal-dominated Synod, which is made up of nearly 500 bishops, clergy and lay people, will reject the proposals, leaving their authority in tatters.

An insider said: ‘This is a huge moment for the Church. It will determine the shape of things to come. The Archbishops are putting their integrity on the line, but are passionate about keeping the Church together.’

However, a leading supporter of female clergy said: ‘There is a good chance the Synod will reject the Archbishops.

Clearly the Archbishops are seriously worried that they will lose so many conservatives if they simply allow women to be consecrated, straightforwardly, with full authority, that they feel they must intervene. They could be right, of course. On the other hand, they might lose a whole lot of other people if they don’t.

Sometimes the most incisive commentary on this kind of endless proposal/revision/amendment roundabout is the comical send-up. (Remember Dave Walker on the Windsor Report?) Check out Pluralist’s Two for Tea

But the story gets even stranger, for Ruth Gledhill now reveals (from behind her paywall) that other women bishops have previously ministered publicly at Southwark with their mitre. US Bishop Geralyn Wolfe preached (though did not celebrate) in November 2001, and a year later Bishop Ann, retired suffragan bishop of Toronto, presided and preached. Not only that, but here was Bishop Katharine herself at Salisbury Cathedral before the 2008 Lambeth Conference, complete with golden mitre:

Colin Slee, Dean of Southwark, is reported as saying, ‘I can say that female bishops have preached relatively recently in both Salisbury and Gloucester Dioceses and worn their mitres with the respective permission of the Diocesans,’ and concerning the two women bishops who processed with mitres at Southwark, he added: ‘I was not present on either occasion, it would seem to me that permission from Lambeth (presumably that was George Carey) was not sought, or Lambeth made no fuss. Our Diocesan was however present when Anne Tottenham was here.

‘It all goes to show what a silly boy I was to be properly courteous to the ABC and ask permission in the first place! But I can also say that my definition that an ‘Episcopal Act’ is consecrating, ordaining, confirming might have been a wiser course of action. AND I think the other hats in today’s Times are so much more fun.’

Damian Thompson also pointed out the idiocy of Anglican manners (although I get the impression he enjoyed just a little too much the opportunity to sneer):

…the mitre had to stay folded because Ms Schori is not recognised as a bishop by the Archbishop of Canterbury – yet. Wearing it on her head would break a rule imposed by +Rowan. But carrying it? Fine. And note the bishop’s shirt underneath her alb. (A quick footnote: until a few decades ago, some evangelical bishops would have their mitres carried in front of them rather than wear them – not because they doubted their episcopal orders, but because mitres as hats as opposed to symbols were popish.) However, Dean Slee (an old mate of mine who wants to see Anglicanism follow the logic of liberal Protestantism properly and quickly) does personally recognise Jefferts Schori as a bishop, even if he’s not ready to pick a fight with Lambeth over headgear. So, she’s a bishop in Southwark Cathedral, a simple priest in Lambeth Palace, and a lay person masquerading as a priest in Southwark’s Forward in Faith parishes. There may even be one or two churches which, adhering to the position taken by some Anglo-Catholics in the 1980s, recognise her as a deacon but not a priest. No one has yet denied that she’s a woman.

What commentary has emerged elsewhere? Kelvin Holdsworth (Provost of Glasgow’s St Marys Cathedral) wrote:

I suspect this is because the Church of Englandshire does not recognise that women can become bishops yet and so inhibit women who have been made bishops from acting as bishop or appearing as bishops when in England. It is a kind of small-mindedness that we don’t indulge in up here. Either Bishop Katharine is a bishop or she isn’t. If she is, she gets treated with respect as a bishop or she isn’t and we don’t have to bother about her at all. (It was the same years ago for Bishop Penny from New Zealand who was able to act as a bishop in Scotland even before we had made any decision about women and the Episcopatate but she could not do so in England).

I remember that +Gene Robinson was banned from wearing Episcopal regalia when in England two years ago for similar reasons. However, I could not remember whether he had worn one a titfer liturgically when he came here. It made me look back at the video of that service and I found that he did indeed wear a mitre. Seems to me that making headgear the cause of controversy is displacement activity.

My own mailbox this week has had a stream of comments from women who have just been, or are about to be, ordained as priests or deacons. They are disappointed and dismayed as everyone else who sees this whole charade as a massive PR blunder. But there is a personal element too. It swings straight back at them: with one hand the Church has welcomed their giving up of their time, their careers and their economic security in order to serve, while with the other hand, in the very month that they take their orders, it has smacked them down again. You can serve, the Church seems to say, but never dare to forget you are second class citizens.

At one level this whole affair has been a lot of nonsense – as the Presiding Bishop herself said, “It is bizarre; it is beyond bizarre“. But I don’t mind admitting that the onslaught of mockery from those outside the church and disappointment from inside has had me seriously considering hanging up my own cassock.

It sounds so reasonable, doesn’t it? But it isn’t. Delay doesn’t mean everything stands still for a bit longer. A decision NOT to move forward is as active and life-changing for the Church as a decision to go for it. There is no such thing as a decision to do nothing, or to stand still.

what beats me with people who want everyone to wait until everyone agrees theologically (quite apart from the fact that day will never actually come) is that they don’t seem to notice a little stream of women quietly exiting the church by the back door. There are plenty of women I’ve met whose faith in the Church has dribbled away bit by bit until they no longer feel it either welcomes or represents them. I talked to another woman only last weekend who has left the CofE to join the Quakers.

The Bishop of Durham is a very clever man, and has stated that he believes women should be ordained. So why he is either happy with, or unaware of,  the risk of losing yet more of the women of the Church, I can’t imagine.

Turns out that a hen party is staying in the same hotel as the Bishops, and around midnight a naked and very inebriated woman locks herself out of her room and sets off the fire alarm.  One very flustered Bishop has to retire to his room for a minute to think what to do, and then runs back out to give her his dressing gown.

The comment afterwards? “It would have been a good thing if we’d had a woman bishop there to spare our blushes.” A comment in good humour, of course, and it makes a good headline (see here and here).

I guess that must have cheered up some lengthy and laborious committee meetings for the Bishops. (Although I trust they are not really rehearsing the old chestnut that we need women in the church to minister to other women…)

The Church of England has today published the 142-page report of the Revision Committee that has been considering in detail the draft legislation to enable women to become bishops in the Church of England. Also published is an amended version of the draft, eleven clause Measure and associated draft Amending Canon.

The Committee has met on 16 occasions over the past 12 months and considered 114 submissions from members of the General Synod and a further 183 submissions from others. After much discussion the Committee rejected proposals aimed at fundamentally changing the approach of the legislation, whether by converting it into the simplest possible draft Measure or by creating more developed arrangements – whether through additional dioceses, a statutorily recognised society or some transfer of jurisdiction – for those unable to receive the ministry of female bishops.

As indicated to the General Synod in February 2010 (scroll to p6), the draft legislation continues to provide special arrangements for those with conscientious difficulties by way of delegation from the diocesan bishop under a statutory Code of Practice. The legislation has been amended in a number of detailed respects. Provision for statutory declarations by bishops unable to take part in the consecration of women as bishops or their ordination as priests has been removed as has an obligation on the Archbishops to nominate particular suffragan sees to be occupied by those who do not consecrate or ordain women.

Added to the Measure are new provisions requiring each diocesan bishop to draw up a scheme in his or her diocese that takes account of the national Code of Practice and provides local arrangements for the performance of certain episcopal functions in relation to parishes with conscientious difficulties. A further new provision allows such parishes to request, when there is a vacancy, that only a male incumbent or priest-in-charge be appointed.

It is expected that much of the July group of sessions of the General Synod in York (9-13 July) will be devoted to debating the Revision Committee’s report and conducting the Revision Stage of the legislation. This is the moment (equivalent to a parliamentary Report Stage) when all 470 members of the Synod have the opportunity to consider the draft legislation clause by clause and to vote on proposed amendments. Proposals rejected by the Revision Committee can be debated afresh at the Revision Stage.

Once the Revision Stage has been completed – and provided the Synod does not decide that further work is necessary in Revision Committee – the draft legislation will have to be referred to diocesan synods and cannot come back to the General Synod for final approval unless a majority of diocesan synods approve it.

The earliest that the legislation could achieve final approval in Synod (when two-thirds majorities in each of the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity will be required) is 2012, following which parliamentary approval and the Royal Assent would be needed. 2014 remains the earliest realistic date when the first women might be consecrated as bishops.

Notes

The motion carried by the General Synod in July 2008 was:

‘That this Synod:

(a) affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate;

(b) affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests;

(c) affirm that these should be contained in a statutory national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard; and

(d) instruct the legislative drafting group, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to complete its work accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice, so that the Business Committee can include first consideration of the draft legislation in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.’

The Legislative Drafting Group on Women in the Episcopate, chaired by the Rt Rev Nigel McCulloch, Bishop of Manchester, published in December 2008 its further report and drafts of a Measure and associated Amending Canon, together with an illustrative draft Code of Practice and an Explanatory Memorandum.

At its February 2009 group of sessions, the General Synod agreed that the draft legislation should be passed to a Revision Committee for detailed scrutiny. The Revision Committee comprised (ex officio) the members of the Steering Committee appointed from the Synod by the Appointments Committee of the Church of England in November 2008 to be in charge of the draft legislation throughout its Synodical stages, together with additional members newly appointed to constitute the majority of the membership of the Revision Committee and was chaired by the Venerable Clive Mansell, Archdeacon of Tonbridge.

The Revision Committee issued press releases on its discussions in October 2009 and in November 2009.